Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 744 (MP)

Bhuro Devi (Smt) v. Bhagwan Singh

2017-06-20

S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
ORDER : S.K. Awasthi, J. Assailing the award dated 30.3.2007 passed by IIIrd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 124/2006 on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, appellants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The appellants had filed the claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,19,88,000/- on account of death of Gabbar Singh in an accident took place on 30.12.2005, but the third AMACT awarded Rs. 1,64,000/- as compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.12.2005 at about 8:30 p.m. the deceased Gabbar Singh was going from Bhanpur to Dholpura by driving his Bolero Jeep bearing Registration Number RJ 11 U 0181. When the Bolero reached on the bridge of Chambal river, at that time, the driver of the Truck bearing No. RJ GA 0150, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Bolero due to which Gabbar Singh received severe injuries on various parts of his body and he died on the spot. The matter was reported to the police and a criminal case bearing Crime No.0/2006 under sections 279 and 304A of IPC was registered against the driver of the truck. At the time of accident, Gabbar Singh was aged about 38 years and used to work as truck operator and farming by which he earns Rs.2,80,000/- per annum. He left behind his widow and three children. They were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. 4. The reply to the claim petition was filed and after recording the evidence, the Claims Tribunal has passed the award dated 30.3.2007 and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,64,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization. Dissatisfying with the said award, this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation. 5. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all the findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. 5. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all the findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimant's favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, there is not justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that due to the said accident, Gabbar Singh died who was the sole bread earner in the family. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate because the earning has not been duly assessed and the multiplier has not been properly applied while determining the loss of dependency in conventional heads, funeral expenses, consortium, love and affection. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company contends in support of the findings of the Claims Tribunal and submitted that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award appears to be just and proper, hence, interference by this Court is not warranted. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The appellant No.4-Gautam Singh deposed in his statement that his father-Gabbar Singh used to work as a truck operator by which he was earning approximately Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- per month. Apart from that, he also used to do farming work and was earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum from this work. 10. Dharmendra Singh (AW2) supported the version of Gautam Singh (AW1) regarding business and income of deceased Gabbar Singh, but the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence to show that Gabbar Singh was earning Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- per month from transport business and Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum from farming. Since they could not prove the actual income of deceased-Gabbar Singh, the learned Tribunal had taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per month which is totally against the evidence available on record. 1,50,000/- per annum from farming. Since they could not prove the actual income of deceased-Gabbar Singh, the learned Tribunal had taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per month which is totally against the evidence available on record. The appellants have filed the documents with respect to the ownership of the truck belonging to Gabbar Singh so it cannot be said that he had no source of income. The concept of notional income has been invented to meet out few contingencies where income of victim is either unknown or has not been proved or from the facts it emerges that the victim was unemployed either because of his age or otherwise, in order to meet out such situation, legal fiction has been created by the "deemed income" of the victim. In the present case, although the income of deceased Gabbar Singh could not be proved, but it was proved by the appellants that deceased Gabbar was the owner of the truck, therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that he was earning income by operating the trucks. The deceased left behind his widow and three children. It is not disputed that the deceased was maintaining his family. If the annual income Rs. 15,000/- is taken on notional basis, then the monthly income comes to Rs.1,250/- and daily income comes to about Rs.40. By no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that the deceased was maintaining his family by earning about 40/- Rupees per day. Although, Gabbar Singh used to work as truck operator, but after the death of Gabbar Singh, the ownership of the truck has been transferred in favour of appellant No. 1 - Bhura Devi. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants have no source of income, but it can be assumed that the appellants have been deprived from the services of Gabbar Singh which he tendered in the business, therefore, the services of the Gabbar Singh is calculated as Rs.200/- per day. 11. Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, it can safely be held that deceased must have been earning Rs.6,000/- per month. If it is deducted by ?rd out of the monthly earning, then monthly income comes to about Rs.4,000/- and annual income comes to Rs.48,000/-. 12. Gautam (AW 1) has not stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of accident what was the age of adeceased Gabbar Singh. If it is deducted by ?rd out of the monthly earning, then monthly income comes to about Rs.4,000/- and annual income comes to Rs.48,000/-. 12. Gautam (AW 1) has not stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of accident what was the age of adeceased Gabbar Singh. He has not filed any document in support of the age of the deceased, but looking to the age of children of the deceased, it can be presumed that the age of Gabbar Singh was about 46 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 13 has to be applied in accordance with the judgment passed by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 . Since age of the deceased was about 46 years, the multiplier of 13 is considered. After applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,24,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/-towards loss of consortium which I find to be at lower side. The accident took place in December 2004, and considering the structure prevailing at the relevant time, it would be appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards the loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- each total Rs.30,000/- towards loss of affection of the appellants No. 2 to 4, Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. Accordingly, total amount of compensation would be Rs.7,04,000/-. 13. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part and instead of award of Rs. 1,64,000/-, an award of total Rs.7,04,000/- is passed in favour of the appellants. The appellants are entitled to receive total enhanced amount of Rs:5,40,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the realization. The said amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of order passed by this Court. 14. No order as to cost.